Tuesday, May 31, 2016

It seemed like quick thinking when the Cincinnati Zoo shot to death a gorilla that was manhandling a small boy who had fallen into its enclosure on Saturday afternoon.

But soon supporters of animal rights were organizing a vigil outside the zoo in remembrance of the gorilla, named Harambe, a male weighing more than 420 pounds. Online petitions circulated blaming the mother of the child for negligence. By Monday the chorus of outrage had reached such an intense pitch that the zoo held a news conference to defend itself. ...

The boy’s mother, however, has certainly not been at peace. On Twitter, Facebook and other forums, tens of thousands of people have expressed vitriol over her failure to keep the boy out of trouble.

By late Monday, an online petition had garnered more than 180,000 signatures calling for her to be investigated by law enforcement and child protective services agencies for possible child neglect. The Cincinnati police said on Monday that they had no such plans.

In hundreds of comments on the petition, supporters said Harambe, an innocent animal, had not deserved to die.

Just what makes this animal innocent?

If you are anthropomorphizing a gorilla, it was threatening to kill a small child. A human would be killed for doing that.

The gorilla lovers would probably say that it was too dumb to realize what it was doing. Okay, fine, but is that why Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton rush to the defense of blacks who attempt murder?

It is bad enuf to excuse the gorilla, but it is disgusting to blame the victims (mom and child) for going to the zoo. Visiting the zoo is not child neglect.

These animal rights creeps are really sick. So are the social justice warriors.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Some opponents have likened Donald J. Trump to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini; supporters call that a smear tactic.

The NY Times does not call it a smear tactic. The paper does everything to convince you that Trump is Hitler, and only a pro-Trump Nazi would deny it.

The article even finds a Libertarian who says Trump is like Hitler, because Trump is against open borders. The Libertarians need to learn that we cannot have freedom, democracy, and open borders. When they support open borders, they are acting against freedom.

Hitler was primarily a socialist, and today's socialists are in the Democrat Party. If you want to see socialism in action, just look at Venezuela or Cuba.

Hitler was also a warmonger, and Hillary Clinton is the biggest warmonger in prominent American politics today.

And the NY Times has become an anti-American newspaper. If nothing else, the Trump candidacy has clarified the distinction between loyal Americans and anti-Americans. Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol, and others supposed conservatives have been reveals as Republicans in name only. Democrats like Clinton and Obama have been revealed as traitors, and as actively working towards a white genocide.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

“The answer to this racist SJW garbage is not to embrace white supremacy! But without a forceful, effective, unambivalent response to the unhinged militant left, sooner or later the forces of white supremacy are going to organize the dispossessed, demoralized, chaotic white rabble, and the SJWs, as well as the Washington elites, aren’t going to know what hit them. God knows I’m not saying I want this to happen, but I think it probably will happen if we continue on this current trajectory. Slouching rough beasts and all that. It’s Weimar America.”

This could be correct. The Democrat Party, the news media, the colleges, and other institutions are increasing based on white hatred as their reason for being. At some point, the people will get fed up with this, and take drastic action, if the white hatred is not moderated.

A rock structure, built deep underground, is one of the earliest hominin constructions ever found.

Some 336 meters into the cave, the caver stumbled across something extraordinary—a vast chamber where several stalagmites had been deliberately broken. Most of the 400 pieces had been arranged into two rings—a large one between 4 and 7 metres across, and a smaller one just 2 metres wide. Others had been propped up against these donuts. Yet others had been stacked into four piles. Traces of fire were everywhere, and there was a mass of burnt bones.

These weren’t natural formations, and they weren’t the work of bears. They were built by people.

Recognizing the site’s value, the caver brought in archaeologist Francois Rouzaud. Using carbon-dating, Rouzaud estimated that a burnt bear bone found within the chamber was 47,600 years old, which meant that the stalagmite rings were older than any known cave painting. It also meant that they couldn’t have been the work of Homo sapiens. Their builders must have been the only early humans in the south of France at the time: Neanderthals.

The discovery suggested that Neanderthals were more sophisticated than anyone had given them credit for. They wielded fire, ventured deep underground, and shaped the subterranean rock into complex constructions. Perhaps they even carried out rituals; after all, there was no evidence that anyone actually lived in the cave, so what else were the rings and mounds for?

It’s possible then that Neanderthals picked up some beneficial “Game genes” from interbreeding with Cro-Magnons, but the intervention was too little too late to save them from the race annihilation we currently can see happening in Sweden, Britain, Germany and swaths of America.

Theory: too much sexual or cultural selection for Game genes will corrode the modern civilization that fewer Game genes helped create. When social savvy genes crowd out math and high impulse control genes… welp there go your highways, sewage treatment plants, and circuit boards.

Friday, May 27, 2016

A reader claims that Mexicans have been good for California. I am skeptical.

There is no doubt that strawberry growers have been able to harvest their crops more cheaply, and a lot of other businesses have profited from Mexican migrants. Maybe this has reduced the grocery store prices of strawberries significantly, but that is harder to say.

Overall, there are many other factors to consider.

Most Californians have had their water rationed in the last year. Without the Mexican influx, there would have been plenty of water for everyone.

California used to be a Republican state. Now it is Democrat, and the popular mindset is that of parasites and perverts.

California highways are overcrowded. Too many people.

The county where I live used to be free of gang violence. Now I regularly read stories of violent crimes, and they all have Mexican names.

California used to consider a leader in education, and in many other measures of a quality civilization. Not any more.

Millions of white people have fled the state.

So was all the Mexican immigration worth it, to save a nickel on strawberries? I don't think so.

Someone is probably going to comment that most Mexicans hard-working and law-abiding, and that many white Californians are worthless bums. Yes, that is true, but is not really the issue.

So for whoever claimed that there was a study showing that Mexican immigration was good for California, did the study even consider the obvious negatives?

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Here is an anonymous rant by a female grad student who had an affair with an old professor:

My hero is a moral philosopher, who devotes his life to global justice. ... I remember worrying about the possibility that he must already have someone in his life, and my friends reassuring me that he wouldn’t be inviting me to his room if he did. He must be a good man, this moral philosopher. He has, after all, devoted his life to global justice. ...

I said that like the ADULT African women who choose to undergo female genital mutilation because they couldn’t find husbands, like my aunts and grandmothers who had no choice but to bitterly endure watching their middle-aged husbands gallivanting around town with women half their age, his partner’s choice to stay with him is not as a result of free choice, given more favorable and dignified conditions. I am not blaming him for patriarchy, but I am citing him as an example. ...

I should’ve never met my hero, because when I did I found out that, just like his mentor (another famous philosopher), he vehemently refused to subject the private sphere to assessments of justice. I found out that it wasn’t true that he hasn’t had sex for many years, and that I was joining a list of his secret mistresses. The one before me was a 22-year-old virgin, his student in a summer school. Most of my predecessors were sexually inexperienced young women. I was an aberration from his type, he said, for I was not as inexperienced as he usually prefers them to be. He confessed to being unable to find to experienced women closer to his age attractive, to having a preference for innocent and inexperienced young women because older, experienced women remind him of his god-awful mother.

You are probably expecting me to say he is a hypocrite, or something like that. No, my reaction is a little different.

Pogge is a philosopher pushing "global justice", and that whole field is all about trying to value people on the other side of the world higher than your own family, and in imposing your morals on them.

So he would probably complain about Moslem African female circumcision reinforcing the patriarchy, regardless the women want it or not, and regardless of the local culture.

So of course he disrespects his wife. He disrespects everyone who has done anything for him.

These professors are also white-haters, so it makes sense that he would go after young non-white girls who idolize his moral stances.

My gripe is that Yale college students are learning moral philosophy from creeps like this. He just teaches white guilt, and blames white people for everything. He has some sort of weird fetish for seducing non-white virgins who are impressed by his white hatred.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

I just watched the new Angry Birds movie, and it was refreshingly different. A 2-year-old can appreciate it without being subjected to the usual man-hating Disney propaganda about lesbian princesses. It is loosely based on the popular Android/Apple phone game.

The hero of the movie is an angry bird who is ignored when he raises concerns about illegal alien pigs from another island. Leftists, feminists, and SJWs tolerate the pig visitors, but send their fellow bird to a humiliating anger management class. The birds do not wise up until the pigs steal their eggs and threaten to eat their babies.

The pigs are also perverts who read "Fifty Shades".

Even then, the dumb majority of birds would have let the pigs get away with it, until the hero angry bird convinces them to go to the pig island and wage war to get their eggs back.

A dormant American bald eagle also rises to heroically take the birds and eggs back to their home island.

I don't know how the Hollywood thought police let this film out of the can. Maybe today's 2-year-olds will watch this and grow up to be patriotic Americans.

Donald Trump just said that Citizen Kane is his favorite movie. Maybe he would have said Angry Birds, if he had seen it.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

If there is one thing that defines the Hillary Clinton campaign, it is using identity politics to generate hatred for other demographic groups. Mostly she seeks votes of those who hate white Christian American men.

Hillary Clinton invoked her roles as mother and grandmother on Saturday to deliver an impassioned rebuttal to Donald J. Trump’s contention that her push for stricter gun control would make families less safe, saying the presumptive Republican nominee would put more children “at risk of violence and bigotry.” ...

On Saturday, Mrs. Clinton reaffirmed her commitment to both gun control and the overhaul of the criminal justice system, two issues that formed the pillars of her primary campaign and have helped her win broad support among African-Americans.

Mrs. Clinton vowed to end the “schools to prison pipeline” that affects black men. “Something is wrong when so many Americans have reason to believe that our country doesn’t consider their children as precious and worthy of protection as other children because of the color of their skins,” she said.

She is pandering to those who think that gun laws and racism caused Trayvon Martin to be killed for the color of his skin.

No. Trayvon Martin died because he was a criminal thug who tried to kill an innocent man. Race had little or nothing to do with Martin's crime.

Blacks like Martin do commit violent crimes at much higher rates. I guess Clinton is promising not to prosecute criminals like him, and to disarm the law-abiding men like Martin's hispanic victim.

7. Transgender persons are the product of nature much more than nurture. Debate the origins of homosexuality if you’d like and what role nature vs. nurture plays. But for those who are transgender, nature undeniably plays a primary role. According to medical science, chromosomal variances occur within moments of conception, and anatomical development happens within the nine months in the womb. There is no nature vs. nurture argument, except in cases of brain development, which is an emerging field of study.

No, this is not correct. Bruce (aka Caityn) Jenner does not have any "chromosomal variance" or anything like that. There is no medical science that nature plays a primary role.

Medical science says that transgenderism is a mental disorder.

Wingfield concludes:

This last point in particular raises the largest of theological questions. If Christians really believe every person is created in the image of God, how can we damn a baby who comes from the womb with gender dysphoria? My pediatrician friend puts it this way: “We must believe that even if some people got a lower dose of a chromosome, or an enzyme, or a hormonal effect, that does not mean that they got a lower dose of God’s image.”

I don’t know much about transgender issues, but I’m trying to learn — in part because I want to understand the way God has made us. For me, this is a theological quest as much as a biological inquiry or a political cause. How about you?

His theology is as bad as his medical science.

Christianity teaches that Man is afflicted with original sin, ever since Eve ate the forbidden fruit. That sin is determined in the womb.

Medical science has shown that many criminal and sinful tendencies have genetic causes or are determined in the womb.

If this pastor is going to make excuses for all of that, when what is left to preach about?

His other points are dubious also:

4. Transgender persons are not transvestites. Far too many of us mix these up, in part because the words sound similar and we have no real knowledge of either. Cross-dressers, identified in slang as “transvestites,” are people (typically men) who are happy with their gender but derive pleasure from occasionally dressing like the opposite gender. Cross-dressing is about something other than gender identity.

Again, not correct. Many, if not most, are transvestites. Bruce Jenner is an example, as he does not appear to truly identify as a woman. He just likes the act and the attention.

5. Transgender persons are not pedophiles. The typical profile of a pedophile is an adult male who identifies as heterosexual and most likely even is married. There is zero statistical evidence to link transgender persons to pedophilia.

Bruce Jenner also identified as a heterosexual male, and was married 3 times.

I don't know if anyone claims that people with chromosomal abnormalities are more likely to be pedophiles. The concern, I assume, is that men who want to use the ladies bathroom are more likely to be pedophiles, and represent a threat.

With all the debate over policies encouraging people to use opposite-gender bathroom, we ought to have some real data on who wants to do that.

For decades, men has sometimes been caught and prosecuted for entering women's restrooms or dressing rooms, either in drag or dressed as men, to watch or film women. The laws and rules requiring sex separation did not prove a deterrent in those cases.

This is like saying: People have committed murder, theft, and other crimes for millennia, and the laws did not prove a deterrent in those cases. Maybe the laws did not deter those particular crimes, but the laws have certainly deterred and reduced crime.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Yuval Noah Harari, author of the international bestseller "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind," doesn't have a very optimistic view of the future when it comes to artificial intelligence. He writes about how humans "might end up jobless and aimless, whiling away our days off our nuts and drugs, with VR headsets strapped to our faces," writes The Guardian. "Harari calls it 'the rise of the useless class' and ranks it as one of the most dire threats of the 21st century. As artificial intelligence gets smarter, more humans are pushed out of the job market. No one knows what to study at college, because no one knows what skills learned at 20 will be relevant at 40. Before you know it, billions of people are useless, not through chance but by definition." He likens his predictions, which have been been forecasted by others for at least 200 years, to the boy who cried wolf, saying, "But in the original story of the boy who cried wolf, in the end, the wolf actually comes, and I think that is true this time."

Harari's book is quite good, even tho he does overgeneralize in places and have a leftist bias.

What is going to happen, when the world gets to 10 billion people and the authorities decide that 99% of them are useless?

That is plausible, and if it happens, I think that we will see a mass extermination of the sort that has never happened before. Our grandchildren will wonder why we spent so much effort on non-problems like global warming when we were headed for a demographic apocalypse.

Saturday, May 21, 2016

The NY Times reports that its readers think it is unethical to extend human lives, but they are all in favor of prolonging dog lives:

In fact, many readers of our article about rapamycin claimed they would just say no to such a drug. Rapamycin was tested during a study of dogs at the University of Washington to see if it could slow aging without too many harsh side effects.

Lisa Wesel of Maine spoke for many who argued that trying to extend life was like playing God.

“This is disturbing on so many levels,” she said. ...

Perhaps the most passionate voices, though, came from readers completely unconcerned about human life span.

“Not sure I want to live forever, but my dog? YES!” exclaimed Brian from Montana.

“I don’t want to live longer, but if dogs could live longer that would be wonderful,” a reader named Mary mused. “Beloved dogs are too soon gone from our lives.”

“The heck with human research — I just want my dogs to live longer,” Durt from Los Angeles said.

Meanwhile, BuzzFeed trashes a social-justice-warrior big-shot Yale ethics professor. Supposedly he uses his fame and influence to manipulate much younger women in his field into sexual relationships. I don't know about that, but why was anyone listening to his foolish leftist ideas about global justice anyway?

Update: Professor Pogge responds. He is innocent until proven guilty, and I did not bother to read the details. I am just amused to see the SJWs backstab one of their own.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Recent studies purported to demonstrate that chimpanzees, monkeys and corvids possess a basic Theory of Mind, the ability to attribute mental states like seeing to others. However, these studies remain controversial because they share a common confound: the conspecific’s line of gaze, which could serve as an associative cue. ... Our results suggest that ravens can generalize from their own perceptual experience to infer the possibility of being seen. These findings confirm and unite previous work, providing strong evidence that ravens are more than mere behaviour-readers.

So the ravens behave differently when they are watched by other ravens, and also when there is an empty peephole. The empty peephole is supposed to fool the ravens into thinking that there is a possibility of being watching, even tho there appears to be no one watching.

This is supposed to convince us that ravens are smart enuf to know what other ravens are thinking, even if they are not smart enuf to know that a raven has to look thru a peephole in order to see thru it.

The ravens were raised in zoos, and had to be trained by humans to understand the significance of peepholes.

I dunno about this. It appears to me that they just trained some ravens to watch out for peepholes. The ravens are reacting to peepholes, not to the minds of other ravens.

I am very skeptical about all these Theory of Mind results, even in people. Attempts to demonstrate it in animals are very weak.

(Before I get racist comments -- ravens are birds, and not a metaphor for anything else.)

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

But the most highly educated Americans — those who have attended graduate or professional school — are starting to come together as a political bloc.

Last month, the Pew Research Center released a study showing that nearly a third of those who went to graduate or professional school have “down the line” liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters, whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally. An additional quarter of postgrads have mostly liberal views. These numbers reflect drastic change: While professionals have been in the Democratic column for a while, in 1994 only 7 percent of postgrads held consistently liberal political opinions.

There are various explanations. The most obvious is that academia is subject to groupthink. Right-wingers are tolerant of others having independent views, but left-wingers require conformity.

In case you think postgrads are better at analyzing politics, just look at the silly things they say about Donald Trump. Even philosophy professors fail to grasp elementary logic.

Michael P. Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, writes:

Consistency, Emerson said, is the hobgoblin of little minds. Perhaps no one in American public life channels this thought more than Donald J. Trump. He not only doesn’t fear contradiction, he embraces it. And he is downright scornful of those little minds that are bothered by his performances.

Mr. Trump’s willingness to be inconsistent — even in a single interview, or the same speech — has baffled political strategists for months. Even more puzzling is his followers’ happy toleration of it. ...

In George Orwell’s “1984,” the protagonist is tortured until he agrees that two plus two equals five. The point, his torturer makes clear, is to make him see that there is no objective truth other than what the party says is true. That’s the deep power of contradiction.

No, the point is to make him accept what the party says, whether it is true or not.

The Left depends on denying objective truth. Currently, the Obama administration is obsessed with denying the existence of male-female distinctions.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Lynch's article does not give an example of a Trump inconsistency. The closest is to point out that Trump disavowed David Duke, but refused to make a blanket disavowal of other unspecified groups. Trump also said he loves Hispanics, but not the one who come here illegally and commit nasty crimes. These are not inconsistencies at all.

Trump has, of course, revised his position on some issues, and had to occasionally had to issue a clarification after he misspoke. But Lynch is not concern with those examples.

Newspapers like the NY Times seem clueless about Trump's popularity. They just do not get it.

It is nutty for Lynch to say that people like him for his inconsistency. The truth is more nearly the opposite. Trump has been in the public eye for decades, and he is an authentic man who is just what he appears to be. He opinions show a consistent world view. He is much more consistent than Hillary Clinton.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Democrat Party hatred of white people was on clear display with its treatment of Ferguson Missouri. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and newspapers like the NY Times regularly told us that Missouri white men kill blacks for no good reason, and that blacks need to fight back.

Fed-up with being called cucks for demanding America be flooded with brown people, the cucks decided they would start calling themselves cucks as a way to mitigate the stigma.

The PAC tweeted “Being that #Cuck is the new word for people who don’t hate minorities, WE HERBY DECLARE OURSELVES PROUD #CUCKS!” It was accompanied by a meme image declaring their pride in their cuck status.

They have since deleted the tweet – which is telling. But it’s on archive.is.

Donald Trump has forced these people to reveal their true nature – that they actually hate the White middle and working classes. That they genuinely desire to drain our nation of all of its resources through “free trade” deals and mass non-White immigration.

The Presidential election is boiling down to loyal Americans versus cucks and white-Christian haters.

BTW, a reader asks what makes the NY Times a Jewish newspaper. Admittedly, its biggest stockholder is a Mexican billionaire who makes a lot of his money from illegal immigration into the USA. He is not Jewish, as far as I know. But the owners, management, principal editors, and reader base have been largely Jewish for decades. It is not entirely Jewish, of course, and has many excellent articles on many subjects. The science and book review sections are particularly good. But its editorial positions are always in favor of Democrat anti-white anti-Christian flooding the USA with Third World immigrants.

Monday, May 16, 2016

The findings have proved divisive. Some researchers hope that the work will aid studies of biology, medicine and social policy, but others say that the emphasis on genetics obscures factors that have a much larger impact on individual attainment, such as health, parenting and quality of schooling.

“Policymakers and funders should pull the plug on this sort of work,” said anthropologist Anne Buchanan and genetic anthropologist Kenneth Weiss at Pennsylvania State University in University Park in a statement to Nature. “We gain little that is useful in our understanding of this sort of trait by a massively large genetic approach in normal individuals.”

This is probably the world's leading science journal, and it suggests suppressing science research? What goes?

I don't think that there is any proof that health, parenting, and quality of schooling do have larger impact on individual attainment. We would certainly need some research to determine that. But this Nature article is against the research.

I can only assume that Nature mag is infected with a leftist ideology, as this is the sort of thing that Marxists would say.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

I have also read that science was only invented in around 1600, and that before that, it never occurred to anyone to use observation or experiment to guide their thinking.

I have also read that romantic love was also recently invented. Before modern times, couples married for various reasons other than love.

I have heard it claimed that the concept of human races is a modern invention. Until recently, no thought of Caucasians, Negroes, and Orientals as different people.

I have heard that individualism is another modern European invention. Before that, no one thought of people as having indepedent and individual interests. Nobody thought that they could think for themselves.

Until recently, no one understood that gender was a social construct. Well, this claim might actually be true.

And on and on. I don't know what to make of these claims. Most of them seem absurd to me. But I am not a historian.

Friday, May 13, 2016

Israel was founded as an ethno-state (though it is worth noting that a quarter of its citizens are not Jewish); the United States of America was not. Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors; the United States is not. ...

The “double standards” argument has blatantly anti-Semitic overtones, since it invariably invokes Israel and never other small nations, like Finland, that limit immigration and grant automatic citizenship on the basis of ethnic background.

Most of the pro-immigration arguments I see come from Jews. But they never say that Israel should accept non-Jewish immigration.

Are Finns working to flood the USA with Third World migrants? If so, then maybe they have double standards also. But I doubt it.

Anti-Semitism used to mean people hating Jews. Now it means Jews hating other people.

Young is probably not even Jewish, but she is a libertarian, and libertarians are always wanting to give foreigners more rights than Americans.

Third World immigration can destroy the USA as surely as Arab immigration could destroy Israel.

It is a little crazy to say that Israel can have immigration policies favoring Jews, while the USA cannot have policies favoring white Christians. If you point this out, you will be subjected to various name-calling, like anti-Semitic or like Hitler, or something like that.

What is now Israel was founded in 1948 as two states, one Jewish and one Arab-Moslem. The Arab-Moslems chose to fight instead. So saying that Israel is okay because it was founded that way is a little strange. The USA was founded by white Christians who probably would never have agreed with importing millions of Moslem and mestizo migrants, as we are doing now.

Just remember that every time you hear the word "anti-Semitism", you are listening to someone who claims that Jews have a right to practice identity politics, but that white Christians do not. If there are any exceptions to this rule, please let me know in the comments.

I have also read that science was only invented in around 1600, and that before that, it never occurred to anyone to use observation or experiment to guide their thinking.

I have also read that romantic love was also recently invented. Before modern times, couples married for various reasons other than love.

I have heard it claimed that the concept of human races is a modern invention. Until recently, no thought of Caucasians, Negroes, and Orientals as different people.

I have heard that individualism is another modern European invention. Before that, no one thought of people as having indepedent and individual interests. Nobody thought that they could think for themselves.

Until recently, no one understood that gender was a social construct. Well, this claim might actually be true.

And on and on. I don't know what to make of these claims. Most of them seem absurd to me. But I am not a historian.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists,” he said. “Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”

No, London proved him right. This Moslem mayor is saying that Trump better shut up, or else his terrorist buddies will increase their terrorist murders of civilians.

The mayor is saying that there are two kinds of Moslems -- terrorists, and those who side with terrorists as soon as politicians do not submit to Moslem ideologies.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Facebook scrambled on Monday to respond to a new and startling line of attack: accusations of political bias.

The outcry was set off by a report on Monday morning by the website Gizmodo, which said that Facebook’s team in charge of the site’s “trending” list had intentionally suppressed articles from conservative news sources. The social network uses the trending feature to indicate the most popular news articles of the day to users.

Why is this startling? There have been many reports of left-wing bias at Facebook and Twitter.

Zuckerberg is an anti-American who uses his influence to replace American jobs with foreigners. He does not personally suffer the consequences of illegal aliens. He lives in a gated community and Facebook has disclosed that it spends $5M a year on his personal security.

Never press a "like" button. It just turns on Facebook spying and spamming.

Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.

George Yancey, a sociology professor, says he has faced many problems in life because he is black, “but inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”

Think about that next time you hear some professor make some silly rant against Republicans. He probably knows more Marxists than Republicans.

An example is the Princeton professor and partisan hack Paul Krugman. His main economic advice is for countries to always borrow as much money as they can, and to pay it out in welfare benefits. He seems to have some economic theory that such spending will boost the economy. It is nonsense, of course. So now he is upset with Trump for proposing to reduce the national debt:

Truly, Donald Trump knows nothing. He is more ignorant about policy than you can possibly imagine, even when you take into account the fact that he is more ignorant than you can possibly imagine. But his ignorance isn’t as unique as it may seem: In many ways, he’s just doing a clumsy job of channeling nonsense widely popular in his party, and to some extent in the chattering classes more generally. ...

The Trump solution would, among other things, deprive the world economy of its most crucial safe asset, U.S. debt, at a time when safe assets are already in short supply. ...

He really is frighteningly uninformed; worse, he doesn’t appear to know what he doesn’t know. The point, instead, is that his blithe lack of knowledge largely follows from the know-nothing attitudes of the party he now leads.

Oh, and just for the record: No, it’s not the same on the other side of the aisle. You may dislike Hillary Clinton, you may disagree sharply with her policies, but she and the people around her do know their facts. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, but in this election, one party has largely cornered the market in raw ignorance.

Sunday, May 08, 2016

I do not know much about British politics, but I bet that the white Christians are happy to vote for a Moslem, and claim that they should not discriminate. And the Moslem voters all voted for the Moslem to be mayor of London.

White Christians are the least racist people in the world, by far. They will readily accept all races, religions, nationalities, gender preferences, and whatever. No one else thinks that way.

I thought that it was illegal for Catholics to hold high political office in Britain. Didn't a recent Prime Minister wait until he was out of office to convert to Catholicism? Maybe Moslems are now more acceptable than Catholics.

Doesn't Britain still have an official state religion?

I don't know, but my hunch is that we are headed for another world war. The Moslems will attempt to take over Europe, once they think that they are critical mass. The Europeans will eventually get fed up with their leaders betraying them, and find that drastic action is needed to reverse the damage. It will be ugly.

Saturday, May 07, 2016

Unfortunately, it often seems the Paternos and their supporters are interested only in writing and talking and tweeting about Paterno’s mistreatment; about the N.C.A.A.’s overreach in its investigation; about how Paterno’s statue should return to its former home outside Beaver Stadium.

It’s yet another tragedy that the victims have to keep hearing all this. For them, this case already will live on and on, in their minds and memories, for the remainder of their lives.

So, no, they can’t rest either.

No, the NY Times is keeping this in the news, repeating false accusations, and blaming everyone else.

The article claims:

Who can know for sure? Joe Paterno can’t tell us. What we do know is that Sandusky did terrible things to children, and even after hearing that Sandusky was discovered in the shower with a boy of about 10, Paterno didn’t call the police. He didn’t seek to have Sandusky barred from Penn State’s athletic facilities, or apparently even question his assistant about what he had been told, even though the two men had been colleagues for decades.

No, all of that is false. There is no proof that anyone ever told Paterno that Sandusky did terrible things to children, but just an allegation of one guy who changed his story several times and is using the allegation to sue for $4M.

The experts in child abuse nearly all agree that it would have been completely inappropriate for someone like Paterno to conduct his own investigation. They say that the responsibility is with the witnesses to report first-hand knowledge to the police or CPS. By all accounts, Paterno never witnessed anything, and never discouraged witnesses to report what they saw.

This whole story was a phony as the Duke lacrosse scandal. The publicity about both were almost entirely political and non-factual.

The NY Times now claims that Paterno might have heard a bad rumor about Sandusky back in 1976. Are you kidding? These NY Times editors and reporters are really sick. I agree with Trump's suggestion to bring back the Paterno statue.

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

CNN reports on Hillary Clinton claiming to have a campaign strategy against Donald Trump:

"I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, which first aired on "The Lead."

That will appeal to all the radical feminists who believe that men should be muzzled and kept on a short leash, or confined to an Indian reservation.

For everyone else, Hillary Clinton is the wicked witch of the east. She has demonstrated incompetence at everything she has ever done, and sold out to America's enemies.

“Not everything is about an economic theory, right?” Clinton said, kicking off a long, interactive riff with the crowd at a union hall this afternoon.

“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?”

“No!” the audience yelled back.

Clinton continued to list scenarios, asking: “Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”

No, she is owned by the big banks, and her only hope of getting elected is to pander to low info voters who hate straight white males.

Now that Trump is locking up the Republican nomination, we are going to see Democrats and cuckservatives unleash their hatreds as never before. In various ways, they will show how they hate whites, hate Christians, hate America, hate the middle class, etc.

Trump is the best political candidate since Ronald Reagan. This election is going to be fun.

Update: I listened to NPR radio this morning, and every single guest was a Trump-hater. Why is my tax money supporting people who are trying to destroy America?